Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick G. Fitzpatrick

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick G. Fitzpatrick

Patrick G. Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outside of obituaries, I find no coverage for this person under his full name, leading me to question

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no claim of notability and no reliable and verifiable sources showing the kind of coverage that would establish a claim of notability. The editor who created this article had a grand total of five edits in five months. Despite this editors best intentions, there is no evidence of having the background, skills and experience to create an appropriate article, nor of the discernment needed to know who meets the WP:N standard. This article is probably a poster child for the need for some threshold that demonstrates that an editor is ready to create a new article, but that's not a subject we can address here; We can only deal with the ramifications of the lack of such a policy. Alansohn (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The creator contacted me at my Talk page and I gave him some pointers. He's earnest about finding appropriate sources, so we'll see what happens. I directed him here, but instead he's commented at the article's Talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw your efforts, and this is exactly how we should be trying to reach out to help. The problem is that there is no reason to believe that the subject of the article is ready for an article nor any reason to believe that the editor creating the article has the understanding of either how to create an article or how to determine who is an appropriate subject for an article. Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I am not clear if the subject is NN or the BIO is incomplete. There are allusions to his many important works, but none are listed or, at least, none have page-links. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I infer, and have no reason to doubt, that within his organizations he is known for having made important contributions to them, but I haven't seen any signs that these works have led to personal recognition outside of the context of those organizations. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let the editor/author work on it in his sandbox until, if ever, it is ready, with reliable independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.